What constitutes "waterfront" property

[Metamorphic]

Its all about the amenities.

We, as humans, typically find various associated benefits associated with having water on our property. Whether its a simple creek that provides a little pleasant background noise for a few months a year, or a prime location on the ocean or a large lake with mega views, a dock, beach, and associated recreational opportunities, its all about what valuable benifits to ownership derive from the location.

If the "pond" on the one comp offers much less utility and enjoyment to the typical buyer than the lake front locations offer, that is something that should at least be acknowledged; whether its financially adjusted would depend on whether its a significant enough difference to create a detectable cost difference.

It also occurs to me that the pond property may represent a different, but roughly equivalent benefit to potential owners. A pond on horse property, may be similarily valuable to a family interested in keeping horses as a lakefront location is to a family that likes to waterski. If an appraiser only had 2 recent lake front sales they might include that 3rd horse/pond property to round out their grid of three properties that have in common some significant recreational aspect. In that case the appraiser should probably acknowledge that in the addendum, and put most of his weight on the lake front properties.

 

[residentialguy]

I deal with numerous lake, river and saltwater 'waterfront' properties. Quite frankly, I question the competency of the appraiser who would use a 5 acre parcel as a comp for a waterfront property, especially since other waterfront properties were apparently available.

Being an appraiser from the land of 10,000 lakes, [actually there are over 11,842 lakes (10 acres or larger) in Minnesota], I have much experience in lake front properties.

Using a 5 acre pond might or might not be a good comp. It is not ideal, but the two may be comparable in value and market demand. Is your lake a full recreational lake? Have you compared the assessed land values? Maybe the two properties have equal demand.

Anyone who suggests that an appraiser as incompetent without checking any validity to those accusations, shows incompetency, imo.

 

[tbliss86]

Our lake is about 19000 acres and is a fully functional recreation lake. The main comment I have a problem with in the appraisal is because it is misleading and complete false because comp#1 is NOT on our lake at all. Here is the comment from the appraiser.

Subject and all sales are equal in location, lake
amenities, fee simple title, lake & residential view, design & appeal, quality of construction, functional utilities, central heat & air, energy efficient items, porch areas including​

screened in porches, storage area, and school systems

 

[David Beasley]

Our lake is about 19000 acres and is a fully functional recreation lake. The main comment I have a problem with in the appraisal is because it is misleading and complete false because comp#1 is NOT on our lake at all. Here is the comment from the appraiser.

Subject and all sales are equal in location, lake
amenities, fee simple title, lake & residential view, design & appeal, quality of construction, functional utilities, central heat & air, energy efficient items, porch areas including​

screened in porches, storage area, and school systems

No offense meant, but you're scope-locked on this appraiser being wrong - and are picking apart the report in order to support your own conclusions. The above statement, going by face value, is not false and misleading. Nowhere in that comment did the appraiser allude to any of the comps as being "on your lake". They simply stated that the "subject and sales are equal in location..." which is entirely possible, even for properties that are outside of your neighborhood, even those that are not on "your lake" or on a lake at all.

I am not saying your appraiser was correct, only that you may be incorrect to assume that just because a comp isn't from your lake that it's location (lot value) may not be equal in value to your lot.

But this is all conjecture. None of us are from your area (likely) and we haven't seen the appraisal. We cannot judge the right or wrongdoing of any other appraiser without actually seeing the report, the subject and the comps (and having access to the same databases to "check for better comps" and so on).

Did your appraiser only adjust the comps for location (lot value) or did they also apply a lot value adjustment in addition to a "view adjustment". These can become interrelated, some appraiser may even call making both of those adjustments on any one single comp "double dipping". There are tons of unanswered questions in your case...I'd ask your lender for a reconsideration of value if you are really that uneasy about it. Worst case, you'll end up with your "better comps" rejected by the appraiser, with a written out reason as to why they were rejected this time.

 

[tbliss86]

No offense taken, Im just trying to understand how all of the comps in the report is are described as "Lake and Residential" view when the home is land locked with a pond behind it. Certainly I wouldnt be the only one to question if real property located on a lake is far more valuable than if it is not. I would also understand if the appraisal at least made a comment in the report that she was unable to find other comps rather than representing this one as on the lake, mine or any other. I guess my biggest frustration is Im going to have to pay $350.00 for a report that in my opion is not worth it.

 

[Restrain]

I would agree that 5 acres with a pond is not comparable to waterfront...if it's true waterfront. Now, waterfront varies. Waterfront on a Corps lake is not the same as waterfront on a Water Utility District lake. That being said, we can argue waterfront vs. waterfront, but 5 acres and a pond is not comparable to a waterfront lot (Corps or otherwise).